Posted on 12/07/2007 8:10:37 AM PST by ZGuy
The Reuters headline said: "Mitt Romney Vows Mormon Church Will Not Run White House." Unfortunately, this time Reuters got its story right. In his long-awaited speech designed to win over conservative evangelicals, Romney actually did say something to this effect, making many people wonder why he needed to make such a vow in the first place. It's a bit like hearing Giuliani vow that the mafia will not be running his White House—it is always dangerous to say what should go without saying, because it makes people wonder why you felt the need to say it. Is the Mormon church itching to run the White House, and does Romney need to stand firm against them?
It is true that John Kennedy made a similar vow in his famous 1960 speech on religion, and Romney was clearly modeling his speech on Kennedy's. But the two situations are not the same. When John Kennedy vowed that the Vatican would not control his administration, he was trying to assuage the historical fear of the Roman Catholic Church that had been instilled into generations of Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Kennedy shrewdly didn't say that the Vatican wouldn't try to interfere—something that his Protestant target audience would never have believed in a millions years anyway; instead, Kennedy said in effect, "I won't let the Vatican interfere." And many Protestants believed him—in large part, because no one really thought Kennedy took his religion seriously enough to affect his behavior one way or the other.
The Mormon church is not Romney's problem; it is Romney's own personal religiosity. On the one hand, Romney is too religious for those who don't like religion in public life—a fact that alienates him from those who could care less about a candidate's religion, so long as the candidate doesn't much care about it himself. On the other hand, Romney offends precisely those Christian evangelicals who agree with him most on the importance of religion in our civic life, many of whom would be his natural supporters if only he was a "real" Christian like them, and not a Mormon instead.
To say that someone is not a real Christian sounds rather insulting, like saying that he is not a good person. But when conservative Christians make this point about Romney, they are talking theology, not morality. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Mormon creed will understand at once why Romney felt little desire to debate its theological niceties with his target audience of Christian evangelicals, many of whom are inclined to see Mormonism not as a bona fide religion, but as a cult. In my state of Georgia, for example, there are Southern Baptist congregations that raise thousands of dollars to send missionaries to convert the Mormons to Christianity.
Yet if Romney was playing it safe by avoiding theology, he was treading on dangerous ground when he appealed to the American tradition of religious tolerance to make his case. Instead of trying to persuade the evangelicals that he was basically on their side, he did the worst thing he could do: he put them on the defensive. In his speech Romney came perilously close to suggesting: If you don't support me, you are violating the cherished principle of religious tolerance. But such a claim is simply untenable and, worse, highly offensive.
The Christian evangelicals who are troubled by Romney's candidacy do not pose a threat to the American principle of religious tolerance. On the contrary, they are prepared to tolerate Mormons in their society, just as they are prepared to tolerate atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus. No evangelical has said, "Romney should not be permitted to run for the Presidency because he is a Mormon." None has moved to have a constitutional amendment forbidding the election of a Mormon to the Presidency. That obviously would constitute religious intolerance, and Romney would have every right to wax indignant about it. But he has absolutely no grounds for raising the cry of religious intolerance simply because some evangelicals don't want to see a Mormon as President and are unwilling to support him. I have no trouble myself tolerating Satan-worshippers in America, but I would not be inclined to vote for one as President: Does that make me bigot? The question of who we prefer to lead us has nothing to do with the question of who we are willing to tolerate, and it did Romney no credit to conflate these two quite distinct questions. There is nothing wrong with evangelicals wishing to see one of their own in the White House, or with atheists wishing to see one of theirs in the same position.
Romney's best approach might have been to say nothing at all. Certainly that would have been preferable to trying to turn his candidacy into an issue of religious tolerance. Better still, he might have said frankly: "My religion is different and, yes, even a trifle odd. But it has not kept Mormons from dying for their country, or paying their taxes, or educating their kids, or making decent communities in which to live."
1 Kings 19:14
He replied, "I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, broken down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too."
I already posted conflicting LDS scripture that show he isn’t.
Mormonism taught Romney how to flip flop. You and he learned it very well.
(I was actually looking for an official Mormon source.)
From my book:
(1) John 14:16; (2) John 14:26; (3) John 15:26 & (4) John 16:7-8,13-14 These four passages describe the Holy Ghost as the Paraclete [parakletos] of the members of the true church, just as Jesus is (John 14:16; 1 Jn 2:1; Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25). A Paraclete is a being who pleads one’s cause. He replaces Jesus. We can discern his equality with Jesus because of how he’s described and also because of Christ’s usage of “allos” for another.
One of my favorite biblical passages is John 14:16, for a very good reason. In this one verse the equality and divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are established. Just as “erotao” (not “aiteo”) supports the idea Jesus is equal with the Father, so does “allos” (243/257) not “heteros” (2087/2283) for the word “another,” supports the equality of the Holy Ghost with Christ and the Father.
`Allos and heteros have a difference in meaning, which despite a tendency to be lost, is to be observed in numerous passages. Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes “another of the same sort”; heteros expresses a qualitative difference and denotes “another of a different sort.” Christ promised to send “another Comforter” (allos, “another like Himself,” not heteros).’1
`The use of allos and heteros in the New Testament should be carefully examined, for another numerically must not be confounded with another generically. Mr. Vine points this out in John 14:16. When Christ said, “I will make request of the Father, and He shall give you another Helper (allon Parakleton).” He made a tremendous claim both for Himself and for the Spirit, for allos here implies the personality of the Spirit, and the equality of both Jesus and the Spirit with the Father.’2
The contrast of these two kinds of “another” is clearly visible in Gal 1:6-7 which says:
Gal 1:6-7 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another [heteros] gospel: Which is not another [allos]; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
They abandoned the true Gospel and started following another [a different kind of] gospel. It isn’t another [the same kind of gospel].
The Greek words “allos” and “heteros” are frequently interchangeable,3 but “allos” is used more in the sense of “other/another” while “heteros” is used more in the sense of “different/another.” When “heteros” is used as “a distinguishing adj. or adv. it denotes something which is not identical with what has been referred to previously. This may involve a more or less pronounced qualitative distinction, in which case the term acquires theological significance.”4
Catherine was making snacks for her children and asked her six year old son to help her by getting some fruit from the refrigerator. Her son brought back two apples. She told him, “Please get me another fruit.”
In English, the word “another” doesn’t convey what kind of fruit she’s asking for but if she said in Greek, “Please get me another [allos] fruit” her son would understand her to mean get “another of the same sort,” meaning, “get another apple.” If she said “Please get me another [heteros] fruit” he would understand her to mean “get another fruit but a different kind.” He would consequently get a different kind of fruit like an orange or a pear.
Jesus Christ’s usage of allos shows he was describing the Holy Ghost to be a replica of whatever he was. If Jesus is “God” the Holy Ghost is also “God.”
[ENDNOTES]:
1.VEDBW-NT. p. 29.
2.VEDBW-NT. Foreword.
3.GELNT-SD. 58.36-37; TDNT. 1:264-265; 2:702-704; BAGD. pp. 39-40,315; NIDNTT. 2:739-742.
4.TDNT. 2:702.
How’s THAT for “lying” or being “uneducated”???
It's on an INNER wall!
Close??
These things don’t matter much to me because organized religion and their edicts don’t hold much sway over my life. They are after all, organizations formed and governed by the fallible and malleable. One only has to look at the history of any organization to see they are like the rest of us, not without sin. This is not to say they are evil but rather I think that they are susceptible to temptation.
I appreciate the links you provided and when the Southern baptist link says: “Most broadly, we may use the term Christian in a generic sense, according to which any group is “Christian” if it is properly classified within the category of world religions known as Christianity. In this generic sense, the LDS Church may be described as “Christian.” But this means simply that Mormonism should be classified as part of the world religion of Christianity rather than being classified as a branch of, say, Judaism or Hinduism.”
For me that’s a good enough definition that we humans should dare to undertake. When the definition goes on to further sub-categorize and exclude for this reason or that reason, I think organizations tread on thinner ice. To support their claim they must depend on cherry-picking and combining constantly retranslated scripture which in itself was cherry picked centuries ago. What we have now are the writings that some humans, centuries ago, for his own purposes cherry picked for followers. I believe the devil is in the details and the more we try and parse details to justify something we take on faith, we risk inviting that devil into our twisted explanations. This is not to say the Bible’s pieces are not the word of God but that man’s translations and interpretations after all are the work of men. I think Romney made a good point where he said “The Bible is the word of God. I mean, I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God. I don’t disagree with the Bible. I try to live by it.”. Huckabee also made a good point when he said: “there are parts of it I don’t fully comprehend and understand, because the Bible is a revelation of an infinite god, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their god is too small.”
Thanks for your help but Romney’s Christian enough for me to accept him at his word. But finally and most importantly, it matters more to me that a candidate for president understands these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” and “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”. And shame on all of us for for daring to demand something more.
WHAT!!??
Get an LDS member to POST, on FR, the specifics of their SACRED Temple Rites®!
Nope; the stuff just get yanked IMMEDIATELY when an LDS member whines to a mod!
GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES
Create, Creation
See also Beginning; Earth; Jesus Christ; Sabbath Day; Spirit Creation
To organize. God, working through his Son, Jesus Christ, organized the elements in nature to form the earth. Heavenly Father and Jesus created man in their image (Moses 2: 26-27).
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, Gen. 1: 1. Let us make man in our image, Gen. 1: 26 (Moses 2: 26-27; Abr. 4: 26). All things were made by him, John 1: 3, 10. By him were all things created that are in heaven, Col. 1: 16 (Mosiah 3: 8; Hel. 14: 12). God made the worlds by his Son, Heb. 1: 2. Man was created in the beginning, Mosiah 7: 27. I created the heavens and the earth and all things, 3 Ne. 9: 15 (Morm. 9: 11, 17). All men were created in the beginning after mine own image, Ether 3: 15. Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth, D&C 14: 9. He created man, male and female, after his own image, D&C 20: 18. Worlds without number have I created, Moses 1: 33. By mine Only Begotten I created heaven, Moses 2: 1. I, the Lord God, created all things spiritually before they were naturally upon the face of the earth, Moses 3: 5. Millions of earths like this would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations, Moses 7: 30. The Gods organized and formed the heavens, Abr. 4: 1.
http://scriptures.lds.org/gs/c/73
It appears the “gods” organized the elements of the earth.
Notice that this is from the “official” LDS.org site? If you are as educated as you say, then you’re flat out lying.
A HOME RUN!!!
You really have got to be kidding?! A demon can profess Christ is his Savior and God? Wow! If the Mormon’s profession that Christ is the Son of God, God incarnate, and his Savior does not make him a Christian, then logically, it does not make ANYONE a Christian either.
So, you expect complete expositions on every subject? Do you do the same when you pontificate?
FYI, Mormonism does NOT believe we are saved by our good works. Our theology teaches one can NEVER go to the sanctified state by our own good works without Christ’s atoning infinite sacrifice.
We do admit we can take ourselves out of his hands by willfully rejecting him. One cannot be his “follower” if one doesn’t even attempt to “follow” him and obey him.
Your advocation of “cheap grace” is a DISGRACE.
Isn't it too early yet to write off anyone? So far too much up and down in the campaign.
This is what I was responding to in post 316.
“”Sorry I’m not trying to be “slippery”. I’ll try to be more plain. The things you “seem” to believe in aren’t good enough proof for me that someone who wants to be called a Christian should be questioned. If they are good enough for you, that’s fine we’re done talking and I’m not convinced. But statements like “you should know” don’t seem very open minded to me... but hey, that’s just me. I do try my best to avoid telling people what they should know or believe. I’m not perfect but I try to avoid such things.””
1. That's not 4 a forth century invention. That is a codification of Jesus's fortelling, his words and acts. 2. It's the core of Christendom, Catholic and Protestant, and without it, you are not a Christian. You are Christin(ish), Christian like, Christian derived. Anyone familure with the creation of Mormonism would agree. And, as you well know, there is much more.
Because of Mormonism, and Muhammadanism, I've have quite a bit more sympathy to Jews and their complaints of evangelical proselytizing. I can see the insult.
Why can’t Christ visit both places? Who are you to tell him what he can and cannot do?
Because then there would be no use for:
The Book of Mormon
The Pearl of Great Price
The Doctrines and Covenants
the pronouncements of the Living Prophet...
|
In June 1830, Joseph Smith began translating the King James version of the Bible. However, this translation was not a literal translation from one language to another. It was actually revelation that Joseph Smith received concerning truths that had been lost or changed in the Bible. Joseph Smith had learned from 1 Nephi 13:20-39 and Moses 1:40-41 that important pieces of the Bible manuscript had been removed long before it was available to anyone to translate. Moses 1:40-41 states, “And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak. And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe.” The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible restores many truths about the creation, fall of Adam, Cain and many other truths. Significant additions that the JST makes to the Bible is the age of accountability being eight years old, an extensive history of the prophet Melchizedek and the Melchizedek Priesthood, and information about he prophet Enoch. The translation took Joseph Smith three years to complete and he continued preparing it for printing until his death in 1844. His translation included 477 pages of manuscript and a King James Bible with notations in it. The manuscript was mostly written by scribes including Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, and Sidney Rigdon. Sydney Rigdon appears to have been the principal scribe. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is not the official Bible of the Church, but insights that it adds to the Bible are included in the footnotes of the King James Version of the Bible that the LDS people use.
(From --> http://dearelder.com/index/inc_name/Mormon/title2/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible ) |
Anyone who disagrees is dishonest, and yes, a bigot.
Anyone who disagrees is blind, and yes, possibly lost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.